Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:43:44.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What does the IMF really tell us about star formation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

M. B. N. Kouwenhoven  and
S. P. Goodwin
M. B. N. Kouwenhoven
Affiliation:
The Kavli Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Peking University, Yi He Yuan Lu 5, Hai Dian Qu Beijing 100871, P. R. China email: [email protected] University of Sheffield, Hicks Building, Hounsfield Road, Sheffield S3 7RH, United Kingdom email: [email protected]
S. P. Goodwin
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield, Hicks Building, Hounsfield Road, Sheffield S3 7RH, United Kingdom email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Obtaining accurate measurements of the initial mass function (IMF) is often considered to be the key to understanding star formation, and a universal IMF is often assumed to imply a universal star formation process. Here, we illustrate that different modes of star formation can result in the same IMF, and that, in order to truly understand star formation, a deeper understanding of the primordial binary population is necessary. Detailed knowledge on the binary fraction, mass ratio distribution, and other binary parameters, as a function of mass, is a requirement for recovering the star formation process from stellar population measurements.

Keywords

binaries: generalstars: formationmass function
Type
Poster Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 5 , Symposium S262: Stellar Populations – Planning for the Next Decade , August 2009 , pp. 368 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2010

References

Alves, J., Lombardi, M., & Lada, C. J. 2007, A&A, 462, L17Google Scholar
Bonnell, I. A., Larson, R. B., & Zinnecker, H. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 149Google Scholar
Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763Google Scholar
Duquennoy, A. & Mayor, M. 1991, A&A, 248, 485Google Scholar
Goodwin, S. P., Nutter, D., Kroupa, P., Ward-Thompson, D., & Whitworth, A. P. 2008, A&A, 477, 823Google Scholar
Goodwin, S. P. & Kouwenhoven, M. B. N. 2009, MNRAS, 397, L36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, S. P. & Kroupa, P. 2005, A&A, 439, 565Google Scholar
Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Brown, A. G. A., Zinnecker, H., Kaper, L., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2005, A&A, 430, 137Google Scholar
Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Brown, A. G. A., & Kaper, L. 2007, A&A, 464, 581Google Scholar
Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Brown, A. G. A., Goodwin, S. P., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Kaper, L. 2009, A&A, 493, 979Google Scholar
Kroupa, P. & Boily, C. M. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1188Google Scholar
Motte, F., André, P., Ward-Thompson, D., & Bontemps, S. 2001, A&A, 372, L41Google Scholar
Simpson, R. J., Nutter, D., & Ward-Thompson, D. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 205Google Scholar